Bedini Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 610 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JOSEPH C. BEDINI AND ERNIE BEDINI, A PARTNERSHIP , D/B/A BEDiNI
BROTHERS and WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 12, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL 1
CHINA DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC. and WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 12,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMAN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL 1
COAST DAKOTA FLOUR COMPANY and WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 12,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL.1 Cases Nos. 20-RC-
1010, 20-RC-1013, and 20-RC-1014. March 2, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Benjamin B. Law, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed .2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
Section A (Case No. 20-RC-1010)
1. The Employer, Bedini, is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.3
3. On May 18, 1950, the first petition herein way filed.- On May 23,
1950, the Intervenor and Bedini entered into a collective bargaining
agreement covering the employees involved herein. An amended
petition was filed on June 22, 1950. The Intervenor contends that the
contract bars an election at this time. However, as the original peti-
tion was filed before the execution of the contract and as the amended
petition made only minor changes in the unit requested, we find that
the contract is not a bar 4 Accordingly, we find that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner 's motion in Case No 20-RC-
1013 to incorporate in this proceeding relevant portions of the record in Purity Stores, Ltd.,
93 NLRB No 23 The Board has taken official notice of the proceedings in the latter case,
and has considered the evidence and argument therein to the extent that it is relevant
to this proceeding
3 At the hearing, Local 6, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union
was permitted to intervene with respect to all three cases involved in this proceeding.
* General Electric Company, 74 NLRB 415.
93 NLRB No. 82.
BEDINI BROTHERS 611
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the San Francisco,
California, plant of the Employer, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, truck drivers, guards, and supervisors. The Intervenor
contends that the only appropriate unit is a multiple-employer unit.
Although Bedini, since 1947, has adopted the master contracts
which have been executed between the Distributors Association of -
Northern California and the Intervenor, the record shows that Bedini
is not now, and has never been, a member of the Association, nor has
it participated directly or through representatives in joint negotia-
tions. The Board•has held 5 that the mere fact that an employer has
regularly adopted the terms of contracts negotiated by an association
is not sufficient to predicate a finding that a multiple-employer unit
is appropriate for the employees of such employer. Accordingly, we
find that the single-employer unit here sought is an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act,6 and we will direct a separate election among
the employees in such unit.
Section B (Case No. 0O-RC-1013)
1. The Employer in this case, China Dry Goods Company, Inc., is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to,represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. China Dry Goods is engaged in the importing, purchasing, and
selling of gift wares, household goods, and bamboo products at San
Francisco, California. In 1947 the Intervenor and China Dry Goods
executed a closed-shop contract purporting to cover "the employees
in the Employer's warehouses, plants, sheds or adjacent lots thereto
in the San Francisco Bay area." This contract continued in effect
until May 2, 1950, when the parties executed a new contract for a
3-year term. This contract purported to cover the same employees
as the 1947 contract. The petition in this case was filed on May 18,
1950, seeking a unit of "warehouse employees," excluding clerical em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Testimony at the hear-
ing shows that China Dry Goods has the following employees :
Clerks,7 salesmen, and warehousemen. Of these employees, the Peti-
tioner seeks only the warehousemen.
The Intervenor contends that the May 2, 1950, agreement constitutes
a bar to an election at this time. The Petitioner contends it is not a
'Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc, et at., 81 NLRB 224.
0 Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., et at., 91 NLRB 696.
7 The clerks are employed in the office.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bar under well-established principles because it contains an illegal
union-security clause. China Dry Goods takes no position on the
contract bar question.\
Section 3 (b) of the contract of May 2, 1950, reads, in part:
HIRING. The Employers and the Union recognize the de-
sirability of providing continued employment in the warehouse
industry, and the necessity of having available at all times a
supply of competent employees with experience in the various
types of work covered by this Agreement. To provide such con-
tinued employment, the employers agree to give preference of
employment to applicants who have previous experience in the
industry in the San Francisco Bay Area, by reason of having
been previously employed by any company signatory of this
Agreement in a plant covered by this Agreement within the past
two years in a classification covered by this Agreement, or men
who are presently employed in plants covered by this Agreement
who may become unemployed during the life of this Agreement.
Employers recognize that it has been the practice for such men
to offer themselves for employment through the Union's offices
and consequently, for the purpose of assuring maximum harmoni-
ous relations and in order to obtain the best qualified employees
covered by this Agreement, the Employers agree that in hiring
to fill all vacancies or new positions in the classification of freight
handler or, in the grocery group, general warehouse workers,
that they will hire through the offices of the Union, provided the
Union shall be able to furnish competent- and experienced men
for the work required. In the event the offices of the Union are
unable within a reasonable time, to furnish competent and ex-
perienced men satisfactory to the Employer, the Employer may
hire from outside sources. For all other classifications of em-
ployees accepted hiring practices under existing and expired
agreements shall be continued during the life of this Agree-
ment .. .
As the employees covered by the instant petition are neither freight
handlers s nor in the grocery group, they are subject only to the em-
phasized portion of the above-quoted language relating to "other clas-
sifications." The effect of this language is to continue with respect to
them the closed-shop hiring practices established by the preexisting
contract between China Dry Goods and the Intervenor. As the 1950'
contract, therefore, contains an illegal union-security provision, we
find that it does not bar the petition in this case. Accordingly, we
8 The Employer testified that the employees sought by the Petitioner were not "freight
handlers."
BEDINI BROTHERS 613
find that a'question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentative of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that
all warehouse employees 9 at the Employer's San Francisco, Califor-
nia, plant, excluding salesmen, office and clerical employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act x 0 We will direct a separate election in that unit.
Section C (Case No. 00-RC-1014)
1. The Employer, Coast Dakota Flour Company, is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Coast Dakota is engaged in the wholesale flour business at San
Francisco, California. In 1947, the Intervenor and Coast Dakota
executed a closed-shop contract purporting to cover "the employees
working in the Employer's warehouses, plants, sheds or adjacent lots
thereto in the San Francisco Bay area." This contract continued in
effect until May 8, 1950, when the parties executed a new contract for
a 3-year term, which continued the coverage provisions of the 1947
contract, but changed the union-security provisions by substituting
for the closed-shop, union, security provisions identical with those
quoted above in the discussion of Case No. 20-RC-1013. The pe-
tition in this case was filed on May 18, 1950, seeking a unit of "ware-
house employees," excluding office and clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. Testimony at the hearing shows
that Coast Dakota has the following employees : Clerks, salesmen, a
bakery serviceman," and three warehousemen. Of these employees
the Petitioner seeks only the three "warehousemen," who load trucks
and unload cars.
The Intervenor contends that the May 8, 1950, agreement constitutes
a bar to an election at this time. The Petitioner contends, however,
that it is not a bar under Board policy because Section 3 (b) thereof
contains an illegal union-security clause. Coast Dakota takes no po-
sition on the contract bar question.
Section 3 (b) of the contract between the Intervenor and Coast
Dakota is identical with Section 3 (b) of the contract between the
9As the bead shipping clerk does not possess any of the indicia of a supervisor , we shall
include him in the unit.
10 In accordance with, the agreement of the parties , we shall confine the unit to permanent
employees.
' The bakery serviceman operates an experimental bakery. The clerks are employed in
the office.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervenor and China Dry Goods, quoted above in connection with
the discussion of Case No. 20-RC-1013, and includes the same lan-
guage as the emphasized portion of that quotation. That language
requires the application to certain categories of employees-i. e.,
classifications other than freight handlers and general warehousemen
in the grocery group-of the closed-shop hiring practices established
by,the prior contract between Coast Dakota and the Intervenor. As
Coast Dakota's 1950 contract, therefore, contains an illegal union-
security provision, we find that it does not bar the petition in this
case 12 Accordingly we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that
all warehouse employees 13 at the Employer's San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act. We will direct a separate election in the unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
12 In view of this disposition of the case , it is not necessary to determine whether the
"hiring hall" provisions of Section 3 (b) of the foregoing contract are illegal
1S In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we exclude the bakery serviceman
from the unit.
S'. H. KRESS & COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 30, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-2473.
March 2, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Greenidge, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
93 NLRB No. 86.